S. B. MAJMUDAR, C. J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned advocates for the parties and by consent this writ appeal is treated to have been heard finally and is disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE short question involved is whether the resolution passed by the first respondent, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (for short Examination Board) to the effect that those students who have taken Kannada and Hindi as third language, 15 grace marks should be given as per the orders of the Government and secondly that in each subject 8 marks and altogether not exceeding 14 marks should be given to a candidate to pass the examination to the best advantage of the students concerned, is required to be implemented in the case of the appellant. Appellant had appeared at the S. S. L. C. examination held in May 1993 and is declared to have failed in the said examination. He secured the marks as follows:-ENGLISH 37 for 125 kannada 35 for 100 hindi 8 for 100 social Science 53 for 100 general Science 30 for 100 general Mathematics 45 for 100 ( 3 ) THE aforesaid resolution was produced with the petition at Annexure-A. It is the contention of the appellant that if this resolution is implemented then the appellant would be entitled to be declared as having passed the said examination. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the resolution Annexure-A passed by the Board is ultra vires the powers of the Board and hence it could not be pressed into service by the appellant. In this appeal it is vehemently contended that the Board has all powers to issue appropriate directions in connection with assessment of apers of the concerned students and it mains in the realm of examination and assessment of answer papers in the said examination. That Section 26 of the Mysore secondary Education Examination Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relied upon by the learned single Judge deals with the power of the Board to frame regulations, and it is true that under sub-section (2) of S. 26 regulations have been framed regarding the marks required for passing in any subjects or the examination in whole. That power will not take away the general power of the Board under S. 15 of the Act specially Sec. 15 (c) which entitles the Board to arrange for the conduct of and for publishing the results of examinations; and also Section 15 (1) of the Act, which empowers the Board to do all such acts and things as may be necessarry to carry out the purposes of this Act. The learned Government advocate, on the other hand submitted that Board being a statutory authority cannot travel beyond the statute and once it has framed regulations under S. 26 of the Act and fixed the minimum marks required for passing in any subjects, it cannot tinker with the said minimum marks fixed by resorting to such general resolutions about gracing, and that if at all, the Board could have sought directions from the State Government under Section 33 in this connection, but could not unilaterally have passed such a resolution Annexure-A and therefore it is rightly held by the learned single Judge, that it is ultra vires the powers of the Board. ( 5 ) HAVING given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions, we find, with respect the learned single Judge was not justified in taking the view that the scheme of gracing marks in a given examination as envisaged by the resolution Annexure-A passed by the Board is ultra vires the scheme of the Act. It has to be kept in view that the Board is a statutory authority entrusted with the duty of holding examinations namely as indicated by S. 15 (a) to hold, (i) the Mysore Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination; (ii) the Teachers Certificate Examination (Higher); (iii) the Teachers Certificate Examination (Lower); (iv) any other examination which the State Government may from time to time by notification specify. Therefore the Board is a Statutory Examining Body. It has to examine and supervise and arrange publication of results in such examinations which it has to hold and it is also entrusted with the power as per S. 15 (1) to do all such acts and things as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. It is true that under S. 26, sub-sec. (2) of the Act, the Board has fixed minimum marks for passing in any subjects or the examination as a whole. That is the topic covered by the Statute. It is true that under S. 26, sub-sec. (2) of the Act, the Board has fixed minimum marks for passing in any subjects or the examination as a whole. That is the topic covered by the Statute. But so far as the gracing of marks is concerned it is in the realm of assessment of answer papers of the examinees. Once the Board appoints the examiners, the assessment of the answer books is left to the examiner. If the examiners themselves find that the result as a whole in any given subject requires to be revised by adopting any pattern of grace marks, it would be for the examiners to do so. Similarly, as an examining Body Board has got control over the examiners. The Board can also exercise the very same power. That power flows from S. 15, sub-sec. (e) read with sub-sec. (1) as indicated above. The Resolutionannexure-Asquarely falls within the exercise of that power. It must be noted that there is no Regulation framed by the Board under S. 26 (2) of the Act regarding gracing of the marks in the given examination. Therefore, there is no regulation which holds the field on this aspect which can be said to be circumvented by the Board, by issuing the Resolution in questionannexure-A. This Resolution will squarely fall within the topic of assessment of answer papers in the examination and would be covered by the aforesaid provision of S. 15. With respect, therefore, the learned single Judge was not right when he took the view about the Resolutionannexure-Athat it is ultra vires the powers of the Board. ( 6 ) THERE is no question of invoking S. 33 of the Act in the present case as the State Government has not exercised any right under S. 33 calling upon the Board not to pass such Resolution about gracing. The said Resolution does not conflict with any of the rights reserved to the State under S. 33 of addressing the Board on any aspect. Therefore, the Resolutionannexure-Ais neither hit by any of the Regulation framed under S. 26 nor any of the directions issued by the State Government under Sec. 33. Under these circumstances, it must be held that the Resolutionannexure-Awas required to be implemented by the Board and it could not be said to be illegal in any manner. Therefore, the Resolutionannexure-Ais neither hit by any of the Regulation framed under S. 26 nor any of the directions issued by the State Government under Sec. 33. Under these circumstances, it must be held that the Resolutionannexure-Awas required to be implemented by the Board and it could not be said to be illegal in any manner. Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that the appellant is entitled to the relief of direction against the first-respondent Board to give effect to the Resolution of gracing of marks as perannexure-Ato the appellant and to amend the result of the appellant in connection with the S. S. L. C. examination held in May, 1993 when the appellant had appeared. ( 7 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. There will be an order to the extent of directing the respondent No. 1 to give effect to the Resolution on gracing ANNEXURE-A in the case of the appellant and to amend his result in the aforesaid examination and to issue appropriate amended result to the appellant in the light of ANNEXURE-A. The said exercise should be completed by the respondent Board within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. ( 8 ) COPY of the order shall be sent to the Board. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .